dhamma follower wrote:The idea of a self goes hand in hand with the idea that dhammas do not depend only on conditions to arise.

Who has said, implied, or suggested here that dhammas do not depend upon conditions?

The stretching on "formal practice" versus "leaving sati-panna to arise in our natural daily life when there are conditions for it to arise" suggests that certain dhammas (such as sati) can arise because of one's intention or will. Otherwise, why the idea of formal practice at all?

dhamma follower wrote:The idea of a self goes hand in hand with the idea that dhammas do not depend only on conditions to arise.

Who has said, implied, or suggested here that dhammas do not depend upon conditions?

The stretching on "formal practice" versus "leaving sati-panna to arise in our natural daily life when there are conditions for it to arise" suggests that certain dhammas (such as sati) can arise because of one's intention or will. Otherwise, why the idea of formal practice at all?

Brgrds,

D.F

Please restate. The above is not at all clear to me.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Of course we are all well-served to study the teachings - this is not in dispute. The question to me is how do we apply the teachings in our lives?

Do we verify the Dhamma through experience by insight into its actual workings as it happens, do we train the mind so that it is clear and sharp, to see how defilement and clinging arises and cut it off at the root? Or do we rely on the words and trust our untrained confused and deluded mind to apply them properly?

Behind this question is the idea of "self" who can do something... When listening to the right Dhamma, i.e- the Dhamma on realities and anattaness, if there is understanding, it will understand that whatever appears now (seeing, hearing etc...)is only dhamma, not me. Seeing now arises because there's the visible object, eye sense, and eye consciousness, not "I" seeing someone or something. That's how the Teachings are applied in our lives. Not you, me or anyone can do anything. It is the function of panna to do the work.

At first, panna is only of the intellectual level. It is the beginning of the development of understanding. By hearing more about details of realities, and more consideration of what has been heard, which pertains to now, this intellectual understanding can grow, but only gradually, until thira sanna (firm rememberance ) is established and can condition the arising of sati which is directly aware of realities.The development of panna takes a long time, very very long time....

tiltbillings wrote:The practical, experiential reality is, of course, you really won't know or have an idea of what attachments and other such problems there are in your mind/body process that will obstruct your cultivation of calmness until you actually do the practice to cultivate calmness and then actually bump into these problems and then have to deal with them in the light of awareness. If you do not do the practice, these issues may never clearly arise, and you'll never know. And much the same can be said for vipassana.

Are you implying the words of the Blessed One are not good enough?

Quite the contrary.

I think the problem comes rather from not reflecting enough on his words.

Actually, it would seem far more likely that the problem is that my understanding simply does not agree with you understanding, and I have yet to see anything in this thread that is a compelling argument for your undestanding.

If there's more reflecting on his words, which point to all what we experience in our daily life, it can condition a lot more understanding. However, in our deep rooted self-view and desire to get result, we try to "do" something, even to the point of putting his words aside and believing more in our own interpretation based on our deluded perception.

And quite frankly, that argument can just as easily be applied to your point of view. The reality is that there is room for understanding these things differently. The problem comes with insisting that one's understanding is the only way and everyone else's is wrong (which is what it looks like you followers of Sujin are doing).

We say we take refuge in the Buddha, but do we really take his words to heart and examine them?

Are you going to tell me that I do not? Based upon what, that I do not agree with you?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

SamKR wrote:No one would deny that hearing the Dhamma and wise-consideration is necessary. I think the "formal" practices are rightly done only after hearing the right Dhamma and having wise consideration. If not, then they will of course become blind rituals -- just as listening to the "right dhamma" is also suceptible to become a ritual.

Your post neatly summarises the origin of my total incomprehension of the arguments put forward by the Khun Suhin students. I've been asking that question for five years or so and have never got an answer that I can understand. Certainly practising (by listening or doing other activities) is alway susceptible to wrong views ("I'm a wonderful Dhamma listener/practitioner who is correctly following the Buddha Vacana...").

I am repeating the following because dhamma follower did not reply to it, and I would like him to do so.

===========================================

dhamma follower wrote:As it has been said, the choice doesn't belong to anyone, it is cetana perfoming its functions, but ignorance takes it for "mine" or "his".

Understanding that it is not "me", but only elements arising by conditions is what constitutes right view, an indispensable factor of the Path, isn't it?

Best wishes,D.F

It depends, but until you have awakening you have to work with the "me" and "mine." Also, since this is the classical section we can talk about things using conventional or ultimate language. Conventional language is less clumsy.

The Buddha did not speak falsely:

By oneself is evil done, by oneself is one defiled;By oneself is evil shunned, by oneself is one refined.

To polish or stain, on ourselves it depends,For a person cannot by another be cleansed.(Dhammapada 165)

From the commentary to the Anguttara Nikaya:

Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-kathā, whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-kathā.

To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-kathā , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-kathā, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā. There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, whicheach pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā. It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena.AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55

SamKR wrote:My questions is: How is this intention to do "formal" practice necessarily different from intention to listen and consider right dhamma? How only this so called "formal" practice is based on wrong view of self? Can't the so called "formal" practice be practiced without wrong view of self? Can't there be conditions for the intention to practice formally (other than wrong view of self) just like there are conditions for the intention to listen and consider dhamma (as Kevin stated above)?

No one would deny that hearing the Dhamma and wise-consideration is necessary. I think the "formal" practices are rightly done only after hearing the right Dhamma and having wise consideration. If not, then they will of course become blind rituals -- just as listening to the "right dhamma" is also suceptible to become a ritual.

Edit: corrected a sentence

The difference is one is the teaching of the Buddha (that listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration condition the arising of sati-panna) and the other (that intending to have sati by formal practice) is not, it is the contrary to the Buddha's teaching on anattaness and dependent originations.

Furthermore, even listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration are also conditioned. If this is not understood, then it would also become a ritual. So it all depends on understanding, not on the doing. Without hearing the right words and wise consideration of it, however, there will not be conditions for panna to arise. Should we dispute with the Buddha about it?

You maintained that "formal" practice can be done rightly after listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration. However, AS suggests that if one thinks of "formal practice", it simply means that there's not been right understanding of what had been heard, because a self-view is still there.

tiltbillings wrote:Please restate. The above is not at all clear to me.

The stretching on "formal practice" suggests that certain dhammas (such as sati) can arise because of one's intention or will. Otherwise, why the idea of formal practice at all?

Is it clearer now?

D.F

"The stretching on" is a bit obscure, but I think I get your meaning here.

Let me ask you, using conventional language, one can act intentionally -- kamma --, and does not such an action give rise to dhammas? Could not these dhammas then, in turn, be the conditions for the arising of sati? Speaking conventionally, one can certainly act in such a way that the conditions for sati arise. That is not say to that one just sits on a cushion and say: "Arise sati!!!" But it is to say that one can cultivate conditions that lead to the arising of sati. Even your method claims as much, but just in a more circumbendibus way.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

dhamma follower wrote:The difference is one is the teaching of the Buddha (that listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration condition the arising of sati-panna) and the other (that intending to have sati by formal practice) is not, it is the contrary to the Buddha's teaching on anattaness and dependent originations.

This is a claim that no one here has yet demonstrated, and -- I am sorry to say -- it smacks of the worst sort of sectarianism. If there is value to the Sujin type of practice, it is not well served by this sort of we-have-it-you-don't approach.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:I am repeating the following because dhamma follower did not reply to it, and I would like him to do so.

===========================================

dhamma follower wrote:As it has been said, the choice doesn't belong to anyone, it is cetana perfoming its functions, but ignorance takes it for "mine" or "his".

Understanding that it is not "me", but only elements arising by conditions is what constitutes right view, an indispensable factor of the Path, isn't it?

Best wishes,D.F

It depends, but until you have awakening you have to work with the "me" and "mine." Also, since this is the classical section we can talk about things using conventional or ultimate language. Conventional language is less clumsy.

The Buddha did not speak falsely:

By oneself is evil done, by oneself is one defiled;By oneself is evil shunned, by oneself is one refined.

To polish or stain, on ourselves it depends,For a person cannot by another be cleansed.(Dhammapada 165)

Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-kathā, whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-kathā.

To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-kathā , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-kathā, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā. There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, whicheach pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā. It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena.AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55

dhamma follower wrote:Furthermore, even listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration are also conditioned. If this is not understood, then it would also become a ritual. So it all depends on understanding, not on the doing. Without hearing the right words and wise consideration of it, however, there will not be conditions for panna to arise. Should we dispute with the Buddha about it?

In my limited understanding, the relationship between the teaching about not-self and the teaching about intentionally doing any practice is very complicated -- which the Buddha had to face. It was his great patience and skill that he managed to teach both at the same time to different people having different levels of wisdom; that's why he is a samma-sambuddha.

In my limited understanding, initial right view about no self is a tool for the final direct realization of no self. A person intentionally uses this tool (ie., initial right view about no self) while understanding the complication and acknowledging his sense of self that he is stuck with -- towards the final direct realization of no self

Last edited by SamKR on Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:35 am, edited 6 times in total.

I believe it refers to the kind of being with quick understanding, those who have had accumulated such a great deal of wisdom that one short sentence in common language is enough for them to get it.

I don't thinks so. These verses from the Dhammapada are quite straightforward and are clearly aimed at not some sort of person with paramis to burn, but rather it is directed to anyone, and its language is clear and direct. One does not need the complexities of the Abhidhamma to understand what it being said, nor does one need the complexities of the Abhidhamma to put it into practice.

By oneself is evil done, by oneself is one defiled;By oneself is evil shunned, by oneself is one refined.

To polish or stain, on ourselves it depends,For a person cannot by another be cleansed.(Dhammapada 165)

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

mikenz66 wrote:Your post neatly summarises the origin of my total incomprehension of the arguments put forward by the Khun Suhin students. I've been asking that question for five years or so and have never got an answer that I can understand.

Hello Mike,

If you have not got a satisfactory answer in five years, probably I will not either. But Khun Sujin's students say many interesting and useful things and I like that. So, I want to see by trying to seek satisfactory answer to the question; there might be something fundamental that I have not understood.

Certainly practising (by listening or doing other activities) is alway susceptible to wrong views ("I'm a wonderful Dhamma listener/practitioner who is correctly following the Buddha Vacana...").

Of course we are all well-served to study the teachings - this is not in dispute. The question to me is how do we apply the teachings in our lives?

Do we verify the Dhamma through experience by insight into its actual workings as it happens, do we train the mind so that it is clear and sharp, to see how defilement and clinging arises and cut it off at the root? Or do we rely on the words and trust our untrained confused and deluded mind to apply them properly?

Behind this question is the idea of "self" who can do something... When listening to the right Dhamma, i.e- the Dhamma on realities and anattaness, if there is understanding, it will understand that whatever appears now (seeing, hearing etc...)is only dhamma, not me. Seeing now arises because there's the visible object, eye sense, and eye consciousness, not "I" seeing someone or something. That's how the Teachings are applied in our lives. Not you, me or anyone can do anything. It is the function of panna to do the work.

At first, panna is only of the intellectual level. It is the beginning of the development of understanding. By hearing more about details of realities, and more consideration of what has been heard, which pertains to now, this intellectual understanding can grow, but only gradually, until thira sanna (firm rememberance ) is established and can condition the arising of sati which is directly aware of realities.The development of panna takes a long time, very very long time....

Brgrd,D.F

Hi DF,

A good friend used to say "Buddhist practice is not a self-improvement project" and at least in the long term I agree. I also addressed this point several times in my previous posts and I am at a loss why you don't engage with this. I also don't see why listening to the Dhamma is more of a selfless practice than meditation.

Dhamma Follower, I am perplexed - are you practicing the Sixfold Noble Path? Which is fine with me - mindfulness and concentration can arise spontaneously too. But for the most of us, consciously applying effort to them, is necessary, and was taught by the Buddha, as far as I know.